Legal Profession Act 1966

“Legal Profession — Unqualified persons acting — How section 33 of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) should be interpreted; Legal Profession — Disciplinary procedures — Whether leave to investigate complaint of misconduct against non-practicing solicitor should be granted despite delay”

“CM 7 has its origins in the decision of the District Judge (“DJ”) in Public Prosecutor v Lim Tean [2025] SGMC 33. The DJ had convicted the Applicant of three charges under s 33(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”) after a trial and imposed an aggregate sentence of six weeks’ imprisonment and”

“d before the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) by foreign lawyers not qualified to practise Singapore law (O 3 rr 1(1)(c) and 1(2) of the SICC Rules read with ss 36O(1) and 36P of the Legal Profession Act 1996 (2020 Rev Ed) (“LPA”) and r 3(2) of the Legal Profession (Representation in Singapore Internat”

“In te Matter of Section 102 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) revised Edition 2001 v In the Matter of an application by Nirmal Singh s/o Fauja Singh [2001] SGHC 128”

“In the Matter of Section 102 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) Revised Edition 2001 v In the Matter of an application by Nirmal singh s/o Fauja Singh [2001] SGHC 174”

“Re Compensation Fund established under s 75 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2000 Ed) [2001] SGHC 320”

“The appellant did not accept any of the options. Instead, it lodged a complaint against the respondent with the Law Society under s 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”). On 20 November 2012, the Law Society responded to the appellant’s complaint by advising it that as the complaint filed”

“inlaw/corp/News/Annex%20A%20-%20SICC%20Committee%20Report.pdf (“Report of the SICC Committee”) at para 14); and to that end, amongst other things, foreign counsel may appear in the SICC (s 36P of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed); foreign law may be determined on the basis of submissions rather than proof”

“This was an application brought by the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) under s 98(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”) for the respondent, Thirumurthy Ayernaar Pamabyan (“the Respondent”) to be dealt with pursuant to 83(1) of the LPA.”

“he indemnity principle (see, eg, the Victorian Court of Appeal decision in Mainieri v Cirillo [2014] VSCA 227), it could be argued that such arrangements are champertous in nature. Section 107 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) provides:”

“Deepak Sharma (“Mr Sharma”) under O 53 r 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) for judicial review against the decision of a review committee (“the RC”) constituted under s 85(6) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”). Mr Sharma seeks leave to apply for and the grant of the following p”

“This is an application under s 113 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) to enforce two contentious business agreements (“CBAs”) made between Chancery Law Corporation (“Chancery Law”) and the Management Corporation Title Plan No 1024 (“t”

“undable retainer paid to Mr Pang, I need only point out that paragraph 44 of the Law Society of Singapore’s Practice Directions and Rulings 2013 on non-refundable retainers that although s 111 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) allows solicitors and clients to agree as to costs for contentious business,”

“(“the Law Society”) applied for the respondent (“the Respondent”), an advocate and solicitor of more than 30 years’ standing, to show cause as to why she should not be dealt with under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”). The conduct complained of was, in essence, that the Respondent”

“rough the prism of “need”. While it is true that it is no longer necessary to show that the issues in the case are of “sufficient difficulty and complexity”, which was a requirement under s 21 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1990 Rev Ed), the correct characterisation of the issues before the court continues to pl”

“e possesses professional legal expertise. In the Singapore context, this would usually mean that he is a “qualified person” who is eligible to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor pursuant to the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”). This does not necessarily preclude foreign qualified lawyers (a”

“This is an application made by the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) under s 82A(10) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”) against Mr Ravi s/o Madasamy (“the Respondent”), who is, and was at the material time, a non-practising solicitor.”

“ggesting that Geocon’s solicitors are acting for Geocon while in conflict of interest, that is separate from the merits of this action and is a matter to be taken up in separate proceedings under the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed), if there is a basis for it.”

“intervene in a court application taken out by a complainant who was dissatisfied with a decision of the Council of the Law Society that no case existed for an investigation to be taken out under the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) by a Disciplinary Committee against the two solicitors. In reversing the High”

“(“the Law Society”) applied for the respondent (“the Respondent”), an advocate and solicitor of more than 30 years’ standing, to show cause as to why she should not be dealt with under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”).”

“This is an application to admit Mr Toby Thomas Landau QC (“the Applicant”) under s 15 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”) to represent China Machine New Energy Corporation (“CMNC”), a company incorporated under the laws of the People’s Republic of China, in Originating Summons No 185 of 20”

“The law governing the ad hoc admission of foreign counsel has been well-established by several recent decisions. The governing provision is s 15 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”), relevant portions of which are as follows:”

“Originating Summons No 7 of 2016 (“C3J/OS 7/2016”) is an application made by the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) for an order pursuant to s 94(1) read with s 98(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”) that Lau See Jin Jeffrey (“the Respondent”), an advocate and solicitor, be sanct”

“re [2016] 4 SLR 192 (“the Judgment”), dismissing an application for judicial review. The appellant sought a quashing order against the decision of a review committee, constituted under s 85(6) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”), to dismiss in part a complaint made by the appellant against tw”

“in Gray at [46]). This is merely a recognition that civil punishment has purposes which are distinct from those of criminal punishment. An analogy can be drawn with disciplinary proceedings under the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed), where professional sanctions are often meted out on top of any criminal san”

“Sum faced two charges and two alternative charges, under s 83(2)(b) and s 83(2)(h), respectively, of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”). These related to his alleged failure to discharge his duties as a certificate issuer of the LPOA of the Donor, and his false attestation as witness to the sig”

“Originating Summonses No 5 of 2016 (“C3J/OS 5/2016”) and No 1 of 2017 (“C3J/OS 1/2017”) were applications brought by the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) pursuant to s 98(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”) for Mr Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju (“the Respondent”), an advocate and solicit”

“as a whole by reason of that prominence and seniority when he was convicted on a corruption charge and was subsequently found guilty of conduct implying a defect of character under s 83(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1990 Rev Ed).”

“requirement existed: see the Judgment (HC) at [53]. This meant that the only party who took an objection to the standing of the Appellant was the AG. After considering the relevant provisions of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”) and its legislative history, the Judge found that Parliament had”

“The gravamen of the charges, which were brought, in the alternative, under: (a) s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”); (b) s 83(2)(b) of the LPA read with r 53A of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2010 Rev Ed) and s 71 of the LPA; and (c) s 83(2)(h) of t”

“Andrew Loh Der Ming (“the Applicant”), discontent with professional services rendered to him by Mr Koh Tien Hua of Harry Elias Eversheds LLP (“Mr Koh”), filed complaints under ss 75B and 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”) with the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”). These complai”

“ceedings against professionals, recalibrating the appropriate punishment in the light of amendments to the relevant legislation is not unusual. Where the legal profession is concerned, s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) was amended in 2008 to provide for the additional sanction of a monetary pen”

“the first defendant attempted to file an application in the Supreme Court for leave for an investigation to be made into a complaint of misconduct against the AG and the 12 LSOs under s 82A(5) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA Application”). Again, this consisted of a draft OS and an affidavi”

“cted of two offences under s 96(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2004 Rev Ed; 2008 Rev Ed) (“ITA”). The Law Society of Singapore (“Law Society”) convened a Disciplinary Tribunal (“DT”) under the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”), which found that there was cause of sufficient gravity to refer the”

“ation and documents provided by the [applicant] [did] not provide any support for any of the complaints”. He further claimed that the Review Committee did not exercise its powers under s 85(7) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) to call the applicant or the Lawyers to answer any inquiry or fu”

“A Disciplinary Tribunal was appointed under s 90 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”). As provided for in s 90 of the LPA, each Disciplinary Tribunal shall be appointed by the Chief Justice, and shall comprise a president (being an advocate and solic”

“e conclusion of the legal matter for which the client was being represented. The plaintiff law firm, Messrs Legis Point LLC (“the Plaintiff”), filed the present originating summons under s 113 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”) against its client, Ms Tay Choon Ai (“the Defendant”), for an or”

“The provision governing ad hoc admissions in Singapore is s 15 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). In order for foreign counsel to be admitted, the following requirements stipulated under s 15(1) must be satisfied:”

“This was an application by the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) for an order pursuant to s 94(1) read with s 98(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”) that the respondent, Mr Chan Chun Hwee Allan (“the Respondent”), be sanctioned under s 83(1) of the LPA. The application arose fro”

“or an agreement as to the solicitor’s charge-out rates (as opposed to a lump-sum fee), could ever in principle constitute a “contentious business agreement” (“CBA”) within the meaning of s 111 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”), and if so, what terms ought to be included for such an agreemen”

“uilty to both charges. We agree with the Disciplinary Tribunal that the Respondent’s conduct with regard to both charges constituted “grossly improper conduct” within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed).”

“defendant. As the plaintiff was not a “former client” of the Firm in the ordinary sense of that expression, but a former prospective client, she relied on the definition of “client” under s 2 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed), which includes “any person who … is about to retain or employ, a solicitor …”

“hat six invoices issued to it by the respondent solicitors, Gabriel Law Corporation (“the Firm”), between 15 January 2014 and 28 September 2015 are not proper bills within the meaning of s 122 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”), and that it is thus under no liability to pay them. Alternative”

“iety of Singapore (“the Law Society”) for Mr Chia Choon Yang of Chia Choon Yang Law Practice (“the Respondent”) to show cause as to why he should not be made to suffer punishment under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”). After hearing the parties’ submissions, we found that due cause was”

“raging the modesty of a woman. The Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) applied to this court for an order that the Respondent be made to suffer such punishment provided for in s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”) on the basis that a disciplinary tribunal had found him guilty o”

“This is an application under s 15 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”) for the applicant, BSL (“the Applicant”), to be admitted to represent the plaintiff in High Court Originating Summons No 375 of 2018 (“OS 375”).”

“in both the State Court and the High Court essentially raising the same facts that they had relied on in the bankruptcy application, but disguised as other applications such as applications under the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). Throughout the period, one member of the Tham family also published several”